Listen to this article

This article is from today’s FT Opinion email. Sign up to receive a daily digest of the big issues straight to your inbox.

Imagine you are an investor faced with two competing pitches. One is for a new cancer drug which, despite the hype, you know to be a dud — no more than a placebo. The other is for a proven, well-researched technique to capture carbon from industrial processes. One product works and the other doesn’t. Which should you invest in?

The answer, explains Robin Harding in his column, is, of course, the dud pill. The reason is that there is a distinct possibility that even a useless drug will pass clinical trials and, if it does, it is likely to make the vast amounts of money. By contrast, companies have no incentive to buy into carbon capture technology, not being obliged by law to use it.

What this means at a wider level, Robin concludes, is that investment is often not directed at finding new ideas in any meaningful sense. That should change. After all, we only get the kind of innovation we ask for.

Sarah O’Connor warns the British government not to equate low-paid workers with low-skilled people who are of little worth to the UK’s economy post Brexit.

Brendan Greely predicts that US president Donald Trump may come to regret cheap oil.Lower prices discourage US companies from drilling new wells in West Texas shale.

Nicholas Boles believes that only the ‘Norway Plus’ plan can save Brexit now. The Conservative MP writes that if parliament blocks UK Prime Minister Theresa May’s deal, the European Economic Area offers an alternative.

Fred Studemann observes the strange phenomenon of an existential crisis among think-tanks, which are starting to wonder what they are really for.

What you’ve been saying

We asked FT readers their views on whether British business should accept Theresa May’s Brexit deal.

Baybars said: The deal on offer is undoubtedly inferior to simply remaining in the EU. My understanding is that this viewpoint unites the leading pro-Brexit and pro-remain figures. While I had thought otherwise initially, the more I consider the situation, the clearer it is to me that we need a chance to pause and rethink.

It is to be regretted that your editorial on trade wars makes no mention of the widening US trade deficit and the forces giving rise to that widening …The forthcoming Argentine G20 meeting should focus its efforts on seeking a way to promote better macroeconomic policy co-ordination with a view to reducing global external imbalances. If those imbalances are not reduced, we should brace ourselves for an intensification of trade protectionism that could very well derail the global economic recovery.

Who can be reassured? No majority for ‘no deal’, no majority for the deal on offer …ironically there exists a potential majority for staying put but instead of offering a second referendum Mrs May is trying to tell the country what to think.